English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Still patrolling No Fly Zones? Still UN sanctions? Still evading the ceasefire agreement and UN resolutions resulted from their attack on Kuwait? What would the US footprint in the region be? Would any end be in sight?

2007-07-26 07:52:55 · 22 answers · asked by scoot7 2 in Politics & Government Politics

22 answers

Your sarcastic references are morally offensive.

YES maybe we would be still patrolling the no-fly zones but as we now know ,all the years of CONTAINING THE BUTCHER OF BAGDAD was WORKING in that he was totally unable to reconstitute any WMDs and de facto WAS NO LONGER A THREAT TO HIS NEIGHBOURS.

If the US had not decided to wage it's ILLEGAL WAR OF CHOICE based upon a pack of filthy LIES against Iraq,Saddam would either still be contained and NO threat to his neighbours OR as many experts claim,his power/control would have been eroded further and perhaps at long last Iraqis would have revolted ,had their civil war and Saddam would be gone and Iraq could have been on it's way to reconstruction.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT DEARIE !!!!!!

I understand that Americans need /love/crave a certain level of violence and were pleased as punch when Bush named his Iraqi atrocity SHOCK AND AWE like as if it was a big Cecil B.DeMile hollywood production but even YOU must admit the resultant deaths are not worth this testerone high.


Instead we now have the following because of this lying war mongering evil Bush :

1.Over 400,000 INNOCENT IRAQ MEN,WOMEN AND CHILDREN SLAUGHTERED !!!!!!!!!!!

Who the hell cares eh??? While every day we get detailed up-dates honouring/recognizing US soldiers killed including an exact body count as we should ,seldom does the media even bother to mhonour/recognize these INNOCENT CIVILIANS BUTCHERED BECAUSE OF BUSH'S war.

When they do ,the Military and the government further craps on and victictimizes these slaughtered innocents by referring to them as COLATERAL DAMAGE .

Can you imagine the anyone having the moral bankrupcy of referring to the INNOCENT VICTIMS OF 9/11 AS COLATERAL DAMAGE ??????????

Can YOU image an Iraqi mother who has just collected the body parts of her blown up child having to hear her child described as COLATERAL DAMAGE by the US ???? And you wonder why they hate us so and this is but one little example.




2.Over 3500 US soldiers butchered all for a pack of lies.

3.Bush has turned a TERRORIST FREE ZONE called IRAQ into a TERRORIST HAVEN !!!!!

4.With it's massive violations of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners and it's horrid torturing and killings of thousands of prisoners,the US has eraned the loathing of peoples around the world.

5.The hatred and animosity created around the world because of all the atrocities committed in Iraq has rightly for ever diminished greatly the US image in the world and the trust in it.

6.Bush's obscenity in Iraq has multiplied Bin Laden's membership a hundred fold because at the very heart of all that Bin Laden is really all about which is to expel all foriegn troops from Arab/Muslim lands .

I wonder how American's are going to feel 100 years from now when the only super power China,sends troops into the US .I know,it is NEVER the same is it !!!!!!

I hope I have answered your question eventhough not to your satisfaction.

2007-07-26 09:10:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Gore as POTUS in 2000 with big city vote and 8? of 50 states would have decided that 9/11 was a lawyer deal and done little or nothing. We would STILL be shot at except with expensive Chinese/North Korean missles that sometimes HIT.
We would NOT be landmining all the borders as that would be effective and Al Qaeda would be forced to use the checkpoints which are OPEN for NO apparent reason into a WAR ZONE where relatives have no business attending funerals from Syria, grabbing a gun and murdering somebody.
No Death from above to keep fleers in or out. Same Thing.

2007-07-26 15:02:39 · answer #2 · answered by acct10132002 4 · 0 2

Thousand of Iraqis would still be alive. Thousands would still have all their limbs and still have their children.
What end do you think would have been desirable to the Iraqi people? Would they have wanted the US footprint on their backs? Would they have wanted our type of democracy? Would they have wanted to give us control over their oil?
You are looking at the issue from a US perspective, and from what we want in the area.
Candidly, we should let other countries deal with their own problems and we should improve our defense system here at home.
Our role in protecting our interests overseas should be that of a good neighbor: there to provide assistance to the local people, but not to jump over the fence with guns blazing and commit our soldiers lives.

2007-07-26 15:11:15 · answer #3 · answered by steldog1 3 · 2 0

The Iraq people would still be happy, they were happier under Saddam had Libraries, Carnivals, Zoo's , Schools. More Iraq people surviving and no troops dead. I still say the Iraq people were better off with Saddam than they are today. They say rape rooms, what are we doing now to their people.
Tell me how they are better off, my God, they can't even walk down the street , I feel so sorry for them, bodies all in the street rotting, no water , rotting food, , not electricity, BETTER OFF MY As*. Report Me For This, That Fine With ME cause I really don't give a damn.

2007-07-26 14:59:01 · answer #4 · answered by Nicki 6 · 2 0

The ground there would be A LOT less red.

Perhaps a better more sound approach to Afghanastan, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban could've effected Iraq to change. We'll never know.

2007-07-26 15:09:00 · answer #5 · answered by Incognito 5 · 2 0

It's really hard to say. It's probably that sanctions may have been dropped or at least softened, by now.

The US would still have to have bases in Saudi Arabia, which would have been used to justify more terrorist attacks in that nation, and possibly even one here in the US. The foreign fighters flocking to Iraq might be in Afghanistan and Pakistan, instead.

2007-07-26 14:57:54 · answer #6 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 2 1

Saddam would probably have nukes by now, the thieves in the UN and the Presidents of France and Germany would have stolen so much of the "Oil for Food" money that they'd have been richer than Soros, and we'd still be wandering around behind the little animals in Afghanistan.

2007-07-26 14:58:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

If we had stayed the course in Afghanistan the world would have remained united with us.
We'd probably have found Osama by now.
Bush may have actually gone down in history as a great president.
Too bad he's such a dimwit.

2007-07-26 15:07:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

We wouldn't be hated throughout the world

We would have about 1 trillion more dollars to spend on domestic programs

3 thousand more american troops alive, and 15 thousand more without debilitating wounds and injuries.

1 million more Iraqi's alive

Gas at 1.65/gallon

And yes....Saddam still there with an iron fist keeping a country together by force. But.....keeping Iran at bay and keeping a power balance in the region

2007-07-26 14:58:31 · answer #9 · answered by mark 7 · 2 3

if we had not invaded when we did we would have found that we are universally hated in the middle east so we took a formidable enemy and turned it into something of an ally. now we are just trying to help the legal government elected by the masses keep their power. now if we had not invaded things would have been alot worse over there. the people hated suddam hussien so maybe they would have finally risen up and kicked him out of office. if that had happened who would be willing to bet that iran would be ruling iraq right now and we would still be at war but maybe facing a united arab forces instead of having the arab split pretty much down the middle.

2007-07-26 14:59:53 · answer #10 · answered by ggates1982 3 · 0 3

fedest.com, questions and answers